Comments

I read the comparison and it made my cringe. The WRX is a much better car than the Cobalt SS because it has all wheel drive, which is the killer feature in my view. AWD is going to give the car better balance, make it easier to drive, and much safer in slippery conditions. To be fair, the focus of the article was on the most fun for the money, but I would never spend my own money on a FWD car when a high quality AWD one is available for a similar price.

Honestly, if GM said I could drive one for free, but I had to drive it every day, I'd still say no. Even for free. Seriously.

OK, OK, I'm sure the SS is 1000 times better, but it's still sharing the same basic platform and most of the issues I had with the base model - poor visibility, cramped rear seat, cheap plastics, poor fit and finish.

Bottom line: it feels like a brand new car from 1990.

You can't just slap nice seats and a booming engine on to that platform and say it's the best compact with the turbo. I think they're nuts.

And for it to score that much higher than the Lancer Ralliart? Seriously?

Remember, these are the same people who put diesel in a Legacy GT. The Cobalt SS is indeed a quick car: ditto the MazdaSpeed 3. It's just that many people want to drive a quick car in rain, snow, and ice.....

The Plan B career for most auto writers is to practice saying "Would you like fries with that?"